Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Forum & Miscellaneous | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2012 · Do You Us Use Facebook?
  
 
Jefferson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos....

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559710-38/instagram-says-it-now-has-the-right-to-sell-your-photos/




Dec 18, 2012 at 04:23 PM
buggz2k
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


Never have, never will.
And I hate all these companies who use it for exclusive coupons/deals, etc.
I will never create an acct. there.



Dec 18, 2012 at 04:54 PM
Access
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


I only use facebook for mass-posting photos, that's all. Otherwise I find the interface and the site itself rather annoying.

And I don't post anything to facebook that I want to keep control of because once it's on facebook, it may as well be in the public domain.

For instance, if someone is designing a website and needs photos of something specific, I know many people in this situation who will simply use google images search and then grab and save photos from there to use on their website.



Dec 18, 2012 at 06:08 PM
dsjtecserv
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


Although Facebook owns Instagram, the proposed change to the TOS applies only to Instagram. There hasn't (yet) been an indication of a similar change that would affect photos posted on Facebook itself. You might want to change the thread title to reflect that.

Dave



Dec 18, 2012 at 06:11 PM
snapsy
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


dsjtecserv wrote:
Although Facebook owns Instagram, the proposed change to the TOS applies only to Instagram. There hasn't (yet) been an indication of a similar change that would affect photos posted on Facebook itself. You might want to change the thread title to reflect that.
Dave


Considering Facebook uses every opportunity to leverage private and personal information for their corporate gain I think the title is actually appropriate.



Dec 18, 2012 at 06:15 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


Jefferson wrote:
Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos....

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559710-38/instagram-says-it-now-has-the-right-to-sell-your-photos/



If I read this correctly, only users of Instagram are affected by this onerous, offensive, and absurd policy... at this point. In the interest of accuracy, you should change your thread title to reflect that truth. (As I acknowledge below, Facebook is guilty of some unfriendly practices and worse... but this issue does not affect Facebook users at this point. A better title would be "Do You Use Instragram?")

I do use Facebook and I share photographs there. They are always relatively small, surrounded by a border with branding text, and include both an embedded copyright notice and a barely visible embedded watermark. (This is yet one more illustration of why it is unwise to share full size, high resolution images anywhere on the web. Even sharing small, low-res, watermarked, branded, and otherwise compromised photographs is no guarantee of protection, but it lowers the risks.)

Facebook has and continues to move in some troubling directions, and not just relative to photographers. Unless they change their approach, they will eventually stumble so badly as to upset the apple cart and lead to their own demise.

Dan

http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchell on Facebook



Dec 18, 2012 at 06:18 PM
retrofocus
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


FB can pretty much do anyway whatever it wants with all uploaded content including photos. I am uploading some of my photos there to share with close friends, but I always lower the resolution of the original file and include a named watermark. To delete the watermark, the photo must be severely cropped. What I see is that most photgraphers switched or are in the process of moving to google+. Same thing here to be careful how to post photos, but options for photographers are currently a lot better there.


Dec 18, 2012 at 06:35 PM
deepbluejh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


Kinda sketchy, but nearly everything on Instagram is trash anyway.


Dec 18, 2012 at 06:36 PM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


Most of the Instagram images I see are blurry pics of drunks mugging in a night club or kegger. Can't FB actually making money off that crap unless they plan to blackmail the idiots tagged in the photos a few years down the line...


Dec 18, 2012 at 06:37 PM
ggreene
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


Access wrote:
And I don't post anything to facebook that I want to keep control of because once it's on facebook, it may as well be in the public domain.


Any social media for that matter, not just Facebook. Common sense really. If you have important work that needs to be viewed it should reside behind a password protected folder on your own website.



Dec 18, 2012 at 06:38 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


I post images at facebook, but they are low res and contain a signature. I upload direct and know nothing about instagram.

I doubt my images have any commercial value anyway. But I hate the notion that they can be sold without my knowing.



Dec 18, 2012 at 06:53 PM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


FB compresses the crap outta all the images you upload. The artifacts and funky color are horrid so the commercial usefulness is extremely limited. The even gradation of blue skies on my landscapes actually develop "waves" or "steps" of color rather than an even gradient.

However, I don't think anybody here has any delusions as to what happens to images once on FB or the web. You don't place them there unless you're okay with mass sharing, linking and stealing. You can't control what happens to them. If the images are private or commercially valuable, don't post them. If you do post, be sure to use a watermark or signature in a place that can't be removed without ruining the image.



Dec 18, 2012 at 07:11 PM
Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


Nope , I cant stand Facebook.

now here's a thought.
we should all take pictures of our Ar$ses and upload them to instagram. then lets see them sell all of those



Dec 18, 2012 at 07:38 PM
martines34
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


Way too much data mining and they just really want you to sign up to follow you all over the net.


Dec 18, 2012 at 07:42 PM
Hask2
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


There's a link over at dpreview, where it states that indeed apparantly it's not that changed by the Facebook take-over, just worded differently.

And that other social media aren't any different.

Might be worth a read (comments as well):
http://connect.dpreview.com/post/9262192527/what-you-need-to-kn0w-instagram



Dec 18, 2012 at 07:54 PM
dsjtecserv
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


The dpreview article is incorrect, and I commented to that effect on it. They are correct that the existing ToS language found on Facebook and most other sharing sites does not unfairly claim rights to photos posted there. That language simply provides for the display of your pictures by the site, in pursuit of their job to show your pictures to the world. That's why you posted them there, and you obviously have to give them permission to display them.

The language proposed by Instagram appears to be quite different, with a significantly different potential effect. In this case you would be giving them permission to sublicense your photos to someone else, for purposes entirely separate from your reason in putting them on the site. Those reason could include commercial use of your photos, without compensation or, notification or agreement by you of that usage. That is not even remotely close to the standard ToS used by most sites, and would represent a major intrusion into the fairly-delineated rights of the site and the user.

Dave

Edited on Dec 18, 2012 at 09:57 PM · View previous versions



Dec 18, 2012 at 09:55 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


ggreene wrote:
Any social media for that matter, not just Facebook. Common sense really. If you have important work that needs to be viewed it should reside behind a password protected folder on your own website.


Well, yes. And, no.

This is a social media site, too. ;-)

There are two extreme notions about how to deal with the issues that are coming up in this thread:

1. Put everything out there in full, high-defintion form with no watermarks, copyright notices, or other embedded imagery or even file content - strip out that EXIF. It is a whole new world. Content wants to be free. GIve it away.

2. Keep everything locked up. Never share any files on the net or in digital form. Don't share your work except as prints.

While I can imagine a few unusual cases in which either of those extreme approaches might make sense, neither will work well for most people. In the end it is a question of balancing the potential risks of sharing with the potential gains of sharing, and then finding an appropriate path through all of this stuff that provides, for you, the best balance of lowered risk and reasonable gain.

It is absolutely true that if you share anything on the internet, it can be repurposed and used in some way that you did not authorize. Someone will make a desktop image out of it or put it on their web site or perhaps include it in a printed version of their holiday card or... you get the picture. These are risks.

At the same time, there are benefits to sharing your work (and your story and perhaps your knowledge and opinions) on the internet that might be enough to make the risks worthwhile, at least if you can limit those risks to some extent. You might think that having people see and enjoy your work is sufficient reward, or you might be interested in the beneficial effect on your "brand" that can come from having your work seen and talked about.

So, what balance is right? This is a distinctly personal question, and the answer depends upon what gains your hope for and what risks you fear and how much. For many, the loss that would come from not being present at all in the online world makes the idea of locking everything up on the hard drive a poor choice from just about every perspective, including a business perspective and even from an intellectual property rights point of view. Yet, the potential risks that may come from sharing full-size, high resolution, unmarked image files are not worth the potential for gain that can come from sharing.

So a compromise is usually necessary. For many it takes the form of releasing only relatively small, medium or low quality jpg files, incorporating copyright information, branding text, and watermarks. Even here there is some risk - a dedicated bad guy could remove the identifying file and image information and perhaps use the resulting image as a web page spot image or perhaps as a cell phone desktop. But most people who would do such a thing will look elsewhere for images that easier pickings - bigger, higher quality, no test to remove.

There is another issue though, that is a larger one than simple photo sharing. That is the increasing tendency to give our means of communication, the storage and sharing of our electronic property, and our personal information over to large corporate entities who then, more and more, take control of our property and our lives and the means of communication. I'm not happy to see the number of people who now prefer to communicate via Facebook messaging rather than regular old universally readable and public domain format email. I'm concerned about people whose entire online presence is via services such as Facebook or Flickr or similar. The original power of the web came largely because it was not proprietary - the standards were open and available to all, and users controlled their own content. Heck, it wasn't even that hard to run your own server - such capabilities were built into a number of OS's.

I think we are a bit to blithe about turning ourselves, our content, and more over to social media services... apparently just because the financial cost seems so small.

Dan



Dec 18, 2012 at 09:56 PM
Access
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


ggreene wrote:
Any social media for that matter, not just Facebook. Common sense really. If you have important work that needs to be viewed it should reside behind a password protected folder on your own website.

Yes. That's basically the rule of the internet. Flickr, this site, wherever.

Sometimes mass sharing is okay or even the intent. We (my family) don't use facebook for personal or private stuff because of the problems people have had with stalkers and other nutjobs. But I have no problems posting reportage to facebook, flickr, etc. Much of what I do, I don't much consider it art, I don't much feel like I want to control it, it just goes out there because that's where the value is. The value isn't in being sold or being held back, I hold no illusions about either of those things.

I guess you could call it "applied photography" or such, can't think of a better name right now. This is where wide, out-of-control distribution can be useful.



Dec 18, 2012 at 10:04 PM
lukeb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


Facebook’s Instagram backpedals on some changes in service terms
December 18, 2012, 5:31 PM

The uproar over Instagram’s new privacy and service terms drew a quick reaction from Facebook Inc.’s photo sharing unit Tuesday afternoon.

Changes in Instagram’s service terms announced this week sparked outrage online as users took them to mean Instagram was claiming ownnership and usage rights for any pictures on the service.

In a blog statement Tuesday afternoon, Kevin Systrom co-founder of Instagram, said the company would withdraw some of the new service terms, and sought to clarify other items.

“Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we’d like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear.”

In addition, Systrom wrote: “The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question. Our main goal is to avoid things likes advertising banners you see in other apps that would hurt the Instagram user experience.”

Systrom also sought to reassure users that “Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos. Nothing about this has changed. We respect that there are creative artists and hobbyists alike that pour their heart into creating beautiful photos, and we respect that your photos are your photos. Period.”

– Benjamin Pimentel



Dec 18, 2012 at 11:36 PM
Access
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Do You Us Use Facebook?


I just find these episodes kinda funny, are the administrators at sites like Instagram so far out of touch that they didn't expect a lot of outrage when they changed their policy?

Quite often the changes are rolled back once they observe the outrage that they generated within their community; which is okay, but if they were more in touch with the community or reality in the first place, they wouldn't try to go down that path in the first place.



Dec 19, 2012 at 02:23 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Forum & Miscellaneous | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password